MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149725846 · doi:10.1177/0192513x05283096

Child Adoption in Contemporary Rural China

2006· article· en· W2149725846 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaIdeal (ethics)Context (archaeology)PreferenceState (computer science)Rural areaPoliticsEconomic growthOne-child policySociologyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsFamily planningPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on qualitative information from in-depth interviews and quantitative data from a survey of 425 adoptive families conducted in summer 2001 in rural China, this study attempts to explain the social and demographic patterns of adoption and investigate the roles of the State and families in adoption processes in contemporary rural China. Within the changing context of the new political economy, culture, and social conditions brought about by market reforms (1978) and the “one-child” policy (1979), this study shows that adoption is nowincreasingly used as a strategy for the childless as well as reproductive couples to reach ideal family size and particularly ideal sex composition of children. Moreover, Chinese families are willing to adopt girls, though strong son preference persists. Overall, it appears that individual adoptions of children in rural China follow increasingly individual desires rather than State directives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it